Greyhound Advocacy and Adoption – A History

Today, as we lovingly indulge our pet greyhound’s every need, care for
foster dogs, schedule time for meet and greets and all the other tasks
involved in greyhound adoption, it’s difficult to even imagine that less
than two decades ago 50,000 of these magnificent, docile creatures were
summarily killed every year. Those were the days when the climate was such
that the president of the American Greyhound Track Operators Association
could unabashedly say to People Magazine, “The animals must be disposed of.
It’s an economic thing.” At the time, there was not a breed of dog in
America who was more in need of advocacy than the racing greyhound.

Astoundingly, for the first 70 years of dog racing that was the
prevailing attitude held not only by those in the greyhound racing industry,
but also by the majority of humane societies who considered the greyhound to
be a dangerous, unadoptable animal. Consequently, dog pound incinerators in
the vicinity of dog tracks were choked with the bodies of unwanted
greyhounds; research facilities were provided a steady supply of victims
donated or sold by members of the dog racing industry; and the services of
kill-truck drivers were in constant demand. At some tracks, the bodies of
losing dogs were stacked up in plain view outside the kennel compound. Few
outside the racing industry knew, and no one cared.

During the 1980s, the betting public had become enthralled with the speed
of the long dog. Politicians and state governments also had a stake in the
sleek racing dogs – cash and lots of it. Wallowing in campaign contributions
from wealthy track owners, legislators instituted an open-door policy to any
palm-greasing racing lobbyist who came calling. State governments reveled in
the new-found source of revenue for state coffers – never giving a moment’s
thought to the greyhounds who just kept dying.

Society was primed for the meteoric rise of dog racing in America. At its
height in 1990, 61,000 greyhounds were brought into the world to keep a
steady stream of “fresh hides” (as they were crassly referred to), readily
available for North America’s 60 dog tracks. Everyone involved was making
money and the over-breeding of racing greyhounds was the lynchpin to
success. Sadly, the silence of the animal-welfare community had provided the
industry with an unfettered path to unprecedented over-breeding and
nationwide expansion. But the heightened interest in greyhound racing
invited a new kind of breeder into the industry’s midst – the small-scale
“backyard” greyhound breeder. The kind who developed a personal relationship
with their pups. The kind whose income did not depend solely on the success
or failure of their most recent litter. The kind who, eventually, could not
stomach euthanizing another healthy three-year old dog that they had raised
from puppy-hood. The kind whose advocacy for the racing greyhound would
contribute to a movement that would ultimately bring a multi-billion dollar
industry to its knees.

The Advent of Greyhound Advocacy and Adoption

During the latter half of the 1980s, a few fledgling advocacy/adoption
groups emerged in various parts of the country. The struggles were many,
creating interest in the greyhound as a pet, refuting misconceptions about
greyhound temperament. And a host of other challenges, not the least of
which was money. These were folks who by and large had no connection to the
racing industry and wanted no part of it, except for the dogs. Having seen
the worst of the worst, they spoke the unbridled truth about the plight of
the racing greyhound. It was a time before there was pressure from the
racing industry to expunge the words “rescue, save and advocacy” from the
vernacular. A time when everyone involved in greyhound adoption considered
themselves advocates for the dogs – including the handful of greyhound
breeders who were pushing for reform.

The pro-adoption breeders ultimately opted to form a new greyhound
adoption organization, but their numbers were few so relationships were
fostered with rescue organizations outside the industry. The big hurdle
would be to obtain permission and financial support from the greyhound
racing industry. The industry was quick to recognize the dangers posed by
adoption and the intrusion of outsiders, but slow to grasp the fact that its
very survival would depend on its response to this new concept. If this
fledging effort for industry-supported adoption was to be considered,
concessions by adoption groups would have to be made. The code of silence
that had long been the industry’s standard of acceptance would have to be
met. Although the language adopted was not quite that explicit, it
accomplished the purpose: In return for an annual grant of $1,000 per
chapter, each would have to agree to operate in support of the industry and
issue no negative quotes about greyhound racing to the news media. Money in
exchange for silence – not a wholly unreasonable demand - especially from a
business that could ill-afford scrutiny. The stipulation became known as
“neutrality” or what one might call “the thin grey line” between those whose
focus would be strictly limited to finding homes for greyhounds, and those
who believed that little change would occur without the freedom to speak
about the stark realities facing tens of thousands of racing greyhounds.
Ultimately, everyone found a niche where their efforts could make a
difference.

In the early 1990s most members of the racing industry were complacent
with the status quo. They took care of business in the same way they had for
generations – separate the chaff from the wheat and get rid of it in the
most expeditious manner. After all, you couldn’t succeed in greyhound racing
with a farm or kennel full of losers; besides, there had been no negative
consequences to that business model for decades. But times were changing…
greyhounds were seen walking on-leash down city streets, wagging their tails
and offering kisses when greeting strangers and romping with children in
backyards. Some were even graying from the novelty of old age. The public
began to take notice that racing greyhounds were not just a commodity; they
were loving, affectionate pets. It seemed that with every pet greyhound that
stepped into the limelight, the allure of greyhound racing dimmed bit by
bit.

But it wasn’t just the general public who began to notice.

The Mainstream Media Gets Involved

For 70 years the dog racing industry had enjoyed a free ride completely
beyond the scrutiny of the mainstream press. Sports writers had extolled the
attributes of the day’s big winner and written glowing promotional pieces
about their local dog tracks. The sub-culture beneath the glitz and glamour
of the clubhouse had never been explored. Now, the press was brimming with
curiosity. Fueled with press releases, statistics and information provided
by greyhound advocates, inquisitive reporters were beginning to ask
questions – questions for which the industry didn’t have any viable
public-relations responses. And the most stinging inquiry of all: “What is
the fate of the tens of thousands of greyhounds that aren’t being adopted?”

The floodgates had opened. Over the next five years, hundreds of adoption
articles appeared in newspapers across the country, and each included a
reference to the number of greyhounds that were destroyed annually. Major
media pieces focused on the plight of the racing greyhound – Life Magazine,
The Miami Herald, Inside Edition, CBS News, People, National Geographic,
Penthouse, Tucson Citizen, CNBC, The Crusaders, I Witness Video, The Boston
Globe, CNN, the Associated Press. And greyhound abuse cases that had
previously been relegated to a few lines on page 58 were fodder for headline
news. The public’s long slumber was finally over; but unfortunately the
nightmare for the majority of racing greyhounds would continue for many
years to come.

The public scrutiny forced change within the racing industry as more
people came to recognize that the old way was no longer acceptable. In some
areas of the country, trainers began to hold onto dogs until they could be
taken in by an adoption group. And although the industry’s financial support
for adoption was minuscule, and limited to industry-friendly groups, it did
indicate that the racing industry was beginning to come on board.

The tipping point in terms of major industry change occurred in 1992,
after the Chandler Heights, Arizona, massacre took center stage in
newspapers all over the country. The public outrage that surfaced after the
discovery of 143 greyhounds who had been shot to death shook the industry to
its core. This, along with a number of other high-profile abuse cases – dead
and dying greyhounds in Key West, Yuma, Coeur d’Alene, Cherry Lake, Tucson,
Summerfield, Dowling Park, Ballinger and Pensacola – seared the plight of
the racing greyhound into the entire country’s consciousness. It also forced
an American Greyhound Council spokesperson to issue the following
declaration to his people: “We must face up to reality. We have a terrible
image. And we can’t expect that image to be whitewashed by rhetoric or
tokenism.” Roger Caras, president of the ASPCA, was the first to test the
sincerity of the statement. The ASPCA came away with an AGC grant of
$100,000 that was earmarked for adoption groups – irrespective of their
position on greyhound racing – though these monies were not distributed
among all eligible groups.

The Greyhound Adoption Movement Flourishes

Adoption organizations of all stripes flourished and multiplied
throughout the country. Everyone pulled together for the sake of the dogs,
especially during track closings and other crises. The threat that adoption
groups who dared to speak out against the racing industry would not get
access to greyhounds proved utterly ineffective. The reality was, and is,
that trainers need to move losing dogs in order to make room for potential
winners. Most trainers didn’t really care who took them off their hands. An
increasing number of trainers welcomed the opportunity to be a part of
something genuinely positive for the dogs. And out of it emerged a few true
industry heroes; people who would hold dogs for adoption regardless of cost,
inconvenience and pressure to opt for other alternatives.

Almost all adoption groups shared a common goal: To save as many
greyhounds as possible. We became a part of a movement that over the next 15
years would unfold as the most successful single-breed rescue effort in
history. With adoption numbers rising, and a decline in industry profits
forcing a decrease in breeding, fewer greyhounds were being destroyed. The
racing industry boosted financial support for adoption programs affiliated
with race tracks and emphasized its concern for the welfare of the dogs. But
in spite of these efforts, redemption for the dog racing industry remained
elusive; particularly as evidence of greyhounds in research facilities, and
other cruel means of disposal, continued to surface.

By the mid-nineties, it was evident that the greyhound racing industry
had more to worry about than its tarnished image. The entire gambling
industry was changing. Indian gaming, riverboat and off-shore gambling were
booming, leaving dog racing little more than a few scraps of the gambling
pie. Profits were down from one end of the country to the other, and the
downward spiral was apparent at all levels of the industry. Dog tracks and
breeding farms were cutting their losses and shutting down. The expansion of
simulcast venues failed to adequately reverse the downward trend. Now the
press was focused on the financial decline of the dog racing industry.

The Call to Arms

Double-edged as it may have been, greyhound adoption provided the only
positive publicity the industry had experienced in years. But there was
imminent danger in the increasing power of adoption groups. If the various
groups ever united in the recognition that to a large degree the very fate
of the racing industry was in their hands, a decades-old way of life would
come to a crashing halt. The interface between adoption and advocacy would
have to be dealt with. In 1997 the American Greyhound Council and the
National Greyhound Association signed on with a public relations firm that
represented the fur industry and animal research corporations. Their
expertise was in advising clients in the animal-use business who found
themselves mired in controversy. Their adeptness at justifying the
indefensible was legendary.

Talking points and catch phrases were formulated. Buzz words like
“extremists, terrorists and animal-rights whackos” were introduced to
characterize the opposition. It was a virtual declaration of war, designed
to discredit and marginalize greyhound welfare advocates. From a
cold-blooded business perspective, it was a smart move on the part of the
racing industry. Pressure from a relatively small number of greyhound
advocates had been amazingly effective, and one can hardly blame the
industry for trying to defend itself. In the desperate struggle for
survival, it really didn’t matter that their derogatory epithets didn’t
represent the truth which, as they say, is the first casualty of war.

But it wasn’t enough to have industry spokespersons engaging in name
calling; industry-controlled adoption organizations would also have to take
up the call to arms. To remain in the industry’s good graces, track adoption
programs, satellites in non-racing states and other like-minded
organizations would have to take on the defense and promotion of the dog
racing industry.

The Great Divide

Compliance was not difficult to establish, especially with the scare
tactics and wholesale nonsense that was injected into the rumor mill: “All
the dogs will be killed if anyone speaks out against racing. Greyhound
racing is a ‘political’ issue; non-profit organizations are not allowed to
have an opinion. Greyhounds will become extinct without dog racing.”
Leadership for this new adversarial approach to greyhound adoption was not
hard to come by. Those working in the trenches were so overwhelmed trying to
save dogs that they never looked up to notice what was going on at the top.
Some were more than willing to become water carriers for the industry. A
witch hunt to ferret-out and blacklist “anti-racing” adoption organizations
failed to silence the opposition, or to prevent access to the dogs, but it
did serve to fracture the adoption movement and fuel hostilities.
Eventually, the middle ground and the comfort of “neutrality” were erased –
everyone was pigeon-holed as either “pro-racing” or “anti-racing.” And the
rhetoric was ramped up on both sides of the issue.

The racing industry experienced a certain amount of relief as the century
came to a close. The press had tempered its focus and adoption stories had
become passé. But the hard-core animal-rights community who had no
connection to greyhound adoption, and had previously stayed out of the fray,
still smelled blood in the water. A frontal assault against dog racing was
launched in the year 2000 with a ballot initiative to ban greyhound racing
in Massachusetts. Fearing this threat was a harbinger of 21st century
values, racetrack owners from all over the country poured millions of
dollars into a campaign opposing the ban. Although the initiative failed by
a razor-thin margin, it forced everyone in the adoption community to further
refine their positions. Some stood shoulder to shoulder with the industry in
vocal opposition to the ban; others lent both vocal and financial support in
favor of the initiative.

A Look at the Future

The industry was right. The 21st century did bring change and none of it
has proven beneficial to greyhound racing in America. Additional track
closings have reduced the number of dog tracks to 34. The industry’s
assertion that “nearly all ‘adoptable’ greyhounds are adopted” continues to
be undermined by the discovery of greyhound bodies and the disappearance of
designated pets from racetrack kennels. And so, the interminable haggling
over numbers and terminology drones on. However, the final chapter will not
be written by either “pro-” or “anti-racing” factions, but rather by the
very force that once served as an excuse for killing greyhounds – the harsh,
cold-hearted reality of bottom-line economics.

The live-racing product which brought so much wealth to a few, and so
much misery and death to hundreds of thousands of greyhounds, is nearing the
finish line. The goose that laid so many golden eggs for greyhound breeders
is now laying poker chips and slot machines for track owners whose interest
is money, not greyhounds. It’s only a matter of time before state
governments change gambling laws, and release the racing greyhound from its
servitude to state government. At least casino patrons are willing victims
of corporate greed and state budget deficits.

As greyhound lovers, should we not all welcome that day? The day when we
no longer face the heartbreak of saving some and leaving others behind; when
the greyhound no longer needs the voice of an advocate, because he has the
same chances for a long and happy life that every other breed enjoys. And
when that day comes, the magnificent greyhound breed will – just as it has
for centuries – survive the transition and continue to grace our sofas and
bring love and joy into our lives.

About the Author

As a founding member of Northern California Sighthound Rescue, Susan
became involved in greyhound rescue in 1986; she briefly worked with
Greyhound Pets of America in the late 1980s. Her first encounter with the
greyhound racing industry evolved out of an effort to obtain the release of
racing greyhounds from Letterman Army Institute of Research and eleven other
research facilities in California and Arizona. The resulting revelations
about the system of dog racing and the state of greyhound welfare left her
with an indelible impression – silence was not an option. In 1991, she
founded the Greyhound Protection League and Greyhound Friends for Life.

For information on how you can help and details on some of the abuses
within the industry, refer to Greyhound Protection League, Greyhound Network
News, Grey2KUSA.org, and Tucson Dog Protection.

Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.